Kiran Kumar (Lawyer) 18 October 2011
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment titled as
Anil Sachar & Anr. v/s M/s Shree Nath Spinners P. Ltd. & Ors. has held that
"if the cheque is given towards any liability or debt which might have been incurred even by someone else, the person who is a drawer of the cheque can be made liable u/s 138 of the Act"
there have been various queries in this regard on LCI, so this latest judgment will clear the issue.
R Trivedi (advocate.dma@gmail.com) 19 October 2011
Thats true, guarrantor is stuck. There are 3 types of possible liabilities..
1. A issues to B for his own liability: S.138 applicable.
2. A issues to B for C's liability towards B: S.138 is applicable.
3. A issues to B for A's liability to C: ???
Kind of B being agent of C collecting cheques in his own name. Please provide your valuable inputs on Sr#3 above.
Nadeem Qureshi (Advocate/ nadeemqureshi1@gmail.com) 19 October 2011
Dear Friends
Read full judgement on this
R Trivedi (advocate.dma@gmail.com) 19 October 2011
Mr Nadeem, That fits into Pt#2 above in my submission, which is well settled. What about Pt#3. In pT#3, A issues a cheque in Favour of B for C's outstanding, that means there is no valid transaction between A and B. B is just claiming that he is the agent of C while collecting the cheque in own name (B's Name). I have come across two such cases, contract law, agency law, all are in favor of accused but if any one has any views please let us share.
Member Strength 9,47,460 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
